This blog intends to open windows into the Muslim mind that is cordoned off the mainstream society, to develop communication, understanding, and better relations, especially in the Northwest. It will cast light onto Muslim perspectives on issues ranging from doctrinal to sociopolitical and more.

What is Islamic: Differentiating between Islam and Muslims

So that which is prescribed by Islam (via the Quran) is Islamic. As long as a Muslim acts according to that prescription he/she is being Islamic, otherwise not. Fair enough.

Let’s move a little further on with this argument.

If that which is prescribed by Islam was absolute we really would not have much trouble. We could take the ideology and its individual constituents and accept or refute them individually and/or together and we’d know if Islam is good, bad or so-so. Problem seems to be that, despite claims to the contrary, that original prescription is not all that absolute.

Which source(s) of Islam do you or any other Muslim considers to be that complete prescription is one confounding factor.

Another is how someone interprets those said sources. Issues about who is allowed to interpret them. How many need to accept that interpretation before it becomes canon is another issue.

And then issues around topics that none of the sources say anything about. How does anyone extend the law without corrupting the original spirit of it? Let alone making sure that the original spirit is understood accurately.

In my head, because the original prescription is not absolute (because of all I just said) the practice of it comes into play. The practice (the Muslim) thus very much decides what is or is not Islamic. And depending on the Muslim in question, what is or isn’t Islamic is a pretty fluid concept. For some dude you could be orthodox, for another you would be too liberal.

These issues are common in one shape or another to most ideologies. It’s why all law is interpretive. It is why we have precedence and all that good stuff.

The conclusion that I always come to when I go down this road is that if this and any other religion was divine it would be bereft of these human frailties. That it/they are not only serves to highlight that they are man-made. Which is not a bad thing at all, just that if we accept that, then the question of what is or is not Islamic/Christian/Jewish/etc. becomes a question of what a Muslim/Christian/Jew/etc. does and not what God prescribed.

And thus my final point. If you agree with what I said then you simply can’t get away with the “Islam is good, but some Muslims can be bad” defense. You have to dwell deeper and ask whether the bad muslim was motivated by an ‘interpretation that is bad’ and if that is the case then what do we do about it.

How we decide what is good or bad is another debate altogether.

Looking forward to your reply.

You have raised numerous issues. I will keep my response short for now and address the difference between Islam and Muslims in terms of principles that I use to understand it myself:

1. Muslims agree that Quran is the primary source of Islam. There is disagreement as to the degree up to which other sources should be accepted in Islamic law. Nonetheless, Quran still retains its place as the absolute primary source and therefore, nothing can be above Quran in defining the law.

2. Since the primary source is the Quran, the discussion of what is Islamic would always start with what Quran prescribes and proscribes. If there is a difference in the interpretation, it will be resolved by argument on the linguistic, textual, and other principles used in Quranic interpretation. As an example, I quoted the verse from Quran: “And do not take any human being’s life, which God has declared to be sacred – other than in [the pursuit of] justice.” (Quran 6:151). This verse, as is clear from its text, does not limit this prohibition for Muslims only and, at the same time, it clarifies when the life of a soul can be taken.

In addition, I wrote a post about overall Muslim opinion in which I quoted Gallup poll clarifying that those who said that 9/11 was completely justified presented a political reason and not religious. And it also highlighted respondents who cited religious reasons in opposition.

3. Lastly, this issue is not specific to Quran only but, as you mentioned, it exists with any canon. For instance, the homicide rate in United States is higher than any country in the industrialized world, but that does not mean that in its law, homicide is any lesser crime. If Americans are perceived as indulging in homicide more frequently, it should not undermine the canonical prohibition but rather be investigated keeping in mind the habits and the activities of those who indulge in this crime. And that is how it indeed is investigated to find root causes and react accordingly.